Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

A Sidewalk Shed for the 21st Century

New York City Department of BuildingsThe headquarters of the city’s Department of Buildings will be used as the model edifice for a design competition for a new sidewalk shed.

Imagine if other technologies had stayed as static as New York City’s sidewalk sheds over the last four decades. Televisions would still use analog signals. The Internet would consist of four computers in California and Utah. And cars would have eight-track tape decks and get an average of 12.5 miles to the gallon.

But as the world has moved on, the sidewalk shed — the ubiquitous wooden and steel contraptions outside construction sites that symbolize the constant rejuvenation of New York — has largely been unchanged since the 1960s: erector-style frameworks with flat, flappy roofs that residents have used as rain shelters, bike racks and even chin-up apparatus. What little progress there has been has all been in the lighting: fluorescent has gradually replaced incandescent.

Kenneth J. Buettner, the third-generation owner of the York Scaffold Equipment Corporation, said, “I have pictures of my father and the same type of design we have today at the demolition of the Astor Hotel.” That took place in 1967. Lest one think there has been no evolution in the shed at all, earlier versions from the first part of 20th century were made entirely of wood, and actually used doors from demolished buildings as roofs.

Mr. Buettner and other scaffolding executives argue that the current functional design has stood the test of time. New York City — where pedestrian density, soaring edifices and a handful of fatal accidents have prompted increasingly strict laws requiring the use of sheds — currently has some 6,000 sheds, which collectively span more than one million linear feet.

But the design-minded say the static design actually represents a rut — or, one might even venture, a certain close-mindedness. The sheds have negative functionality, too: they are an eyesore, their bolts can wreck purses, and they are highly disruptive to the businesses that they cover up and block.

So in an attempt to drag the sidewalk shed into the 21st century, the city’s Department of Buildings, together with the New York chapter of the American Institute of Architects and other groups, is holding a worldwide design contest called UrbanShed, which is calling for innovative reinterpretation of a classic piece of New York’s streetscape. (In other cities, the sidewalk shed, also known as a sidewalk bridge, is called a “New York-style shed.”)

The competition will be officially announced on Thursday. Submissions, due Oct. 2, will be evaluated by a panel of nine judges for cost, functionality and aesthetics. Three finalists will be winnowed down to a single winner to be announced in December.

The judges are a cross section of construction executives, city officials and architects; Amanda M. Burden, director of the Department of City Planning; David M. Childs, the architect, who is also chairman of the Municipal Art Society of New York; Craig Dykers, a partner at Snohetta; Robert D. LiMandri, the buildings commissioner; Jean Oei, an architect at Morphosis; Janette Sadik-Khan, the transportation commissioner; Craig Michael Schwitter of Buro Happold North America; Frank Sciame, a past chairman of the New York Building Congress; and Ada Tolla, a partner at the design firm LOT-EK.

The real estate bust and an increasing interest in urban design have created an opportune time for the competition. “I remember trying to do something like this a decade ago, and the psychology wasn’t there,” said Fredric M. Bell, executive director of the New York architects’ chapter. Mr. LiMandri, the buildings commissioner, added, “During a slowdown, we have the opportunity to tap the best and most interesting designers because they have time to talk to us.”

Whether the designs are adopted is ultimately a choice of the three dozen or so scaffolding companies around the city that actually lease the sheds. “I’m open to the possibilities of it,” Mr. Buettner of York Scaffold said. “I’m anxious to see things come of it that will create a more pleasing place for pedestrians.”

But the organizers say that simply drumming up possibilities will create demand for alternatives to the status quo. In fact, there is already some demand, as landlords have pushed away from the traditional sidewalk shed at Lincoln Center, the Bank of America Tower and at St. Patrick’s Cathedral with higher, whiter, brighter designs. “Part of what we do is to create a platform for people to make a choice,” said Mr. LiMandri, who said that businesses were yearning for something new. “Ultimately, the tenants drive the decision of what the landlord does.”

You can dress the scaffolds up any way you want, but we still have far too many, and they stay up far too long. They should stop this conversation and deal with staying on schedule and tearing the scaffolds down sooner

Can someone explain to me what the whole concept of “sustainability” is?

I see this word thrown around repeatedly. As far as I can see, sidewalk sheds are “sustainable”. They already have the capacity to endure in their current form. That’s why they’ve been around for 40-plus years.

Hey, I fondly remember multi colored interior doors being used as walls around first story scaffolding sites.
Thank you for reminding me.
I have a 92 year old friend who is an artist and he painted a very colorful New York City landscape scene fifty years ago that depicted the recycling of these still good, but soon to be discarded materials.
No matter how much futuristic design is put into modern construction site overhangs a pedestrian still has to wear rubber hip boots and a drip proof hat to wade through the accumulated water over and under them.

I like sidewalk scaffolding. After x amount of months or years when it actually get removed the building looks naked. I visited Bologna Italy once, where all the sidewalks are pretty much roofed over. It makes getting around in the rain very easy.
Maybe, seeing as construction will never end in NY, sidewalk sheds should be included in a building’s design and made permanent. The New York Times building has a sort of sidewalk roof/awning, allowing it’s staff to smoke cigarettes freely on a rainy day.
Scaffolding is the urban version of a beach umbrella, bike rack, make shift gym, smoker’s lounge and a good spot for illicit trade as the view is obstructed from police.

Great point, jimmy (#1). Thoughtful, and rich. I’m exaggerating obviously, but the truth is that the sheds are partly for pedestrian protection in addition to construction storage. If they have to stay up longer in order for us all to be safe, then that’s good enough for me.

Stephanie (#2): I think that as far as sustainability goes, the idea is to create something that is low-impact to the environment. In other words, gasoline-driven cars are not sustainable because at some point, we will run out of oil to create gasoline. Although sidewalk sheds are sustainable to a degree — because the materials are reused over and over again — the wood itself is not sustainable and you could probably make other arguments as to how the sheds could be improved.

Recent improvements have included a transition to use of fluorescent lighting, which is much more prevalent now than even 2-3 years ago. It’s common knowledge that fluorescent bulbs use less energy than traditional bulbs. Could more be done to minimize the impact of sidewalk sheds to the environment (both local and global)? Surely.

But I’ll keep my ideas private for now and see what others have to say…

I find the sidewalk shed’s one of the least important issues the city should be dealing with. How about tearing down all the horrible Moses projects around the city and restore the city grid, restore walk-up 5 story buildings (no elevators) and with that restoration, the shops that disappeared with the “high rise park like settings that create voids where only those who live in them have any reason to go there. So, as for the sheds, they serve their purpose well, move on to more important issues.

Local Laws 10 and 11 require that a building’s façade is professionally examined every five years for freeze-and-thaw damage. That’s why there are so many scaffolds around in the city. And they are taken away as soon as the work is finished. Why would the building owner want to pay for scaffolding after work is completed? Would you?

I would like to see a good investigative report on the causes of the enormous increase in scaffolds. Knowing New York, I am sure there are some lucrative reasons that have little to do with necessary reconstruction and everything to do with tax breaks, bribes, and payola.

I like the idea of designing better sheds, but is has one fatal flaw. The new designs will naturally highlight advertising. Then the sheds will spread simply as legalized sources of advertising revenue–just like the thousands of phone booths that no longer work as phones, only as ad displays.

We are approaching the point where urban infrastructure and architecture itself is mainly a prop for advertising. I can’t imagine a more degraded, brain-dead culture.

From what I have noticed on the Upper West Side, these sheds often stay in place all winter, without any work going on. Just walk up West End Avenue, once so beautiful, and notice how ugly sheds have made this stretch of New York. I live down the street from a church with a forever shed. The posted expiration date (faded) is April 2007. Somebody is making money off this eye pollution.

“I would like to see a good investigative report on the causes of the enormous increase in scaffolds.” this sentence by Nelson Alexadander can be answered by one word “money.”
Mr Nelson does not own a multi-family buiiding in NYC…six families are more. NYC has “inspectors” who go around the city and find “defects” in a building’s facade, which have to be corrected and the work can only be performed if there is a sidewalk shed which the city receives a “fee” for its erection.
Another “tax” by Mayor Mike which few people, aside building owners know of, but one of the reasons for higher rents….a pass along to consumers .
Some of this work coud literally be done by a person in a “bucket,” in a few hours, instead a shed has to be constructed
Jay Hirsch

Moses projects like the Guggenheim? Interesting idea of what to destroy. But yes, we need to break up those mandatory ‘green spaces’ to put them on a human scale. Less space with more detail would cost the same amount and be more servicable. As for serving people who actually live in a neighborhood or building, there is nothing wrong with that.

Modern “sheds” or scaffolds should have mirrors in the corners when they detour foot traffic around cranes and equipment. The lighting should be improved and the mirrors would give a sense of security from muggers in the afterhours.

Bravo Nelson Alexander who unlike Mike knows what he is talking about.

The fact is sidwalk sheds degrade our environment.

The fact is the city passed regulations requiring their use but no comparable regulations mandating their timely removal.

The fact is as illogical as it is most building owners don’t care how their exteriors look. A perfect example is 29 Broadway a prominent commercial building at the southern tip of Broadway owned by a Mr. Zev Wolfson.

A sidewalk shed has been up surrounding all of 29 Broadway for over FOUR years now. Neither is he nor is the city doing anything about this outrageous violation of the permit he received years ago.

Other than their appearance, which is really offensive, the thing that annoys me most about the sheds is the way they breakup the sidewalk. I’m a fast walker and can usually wend my way through the ambling tourists and other slow walkers. But once you get under the sheds you come to a dead halt while one of those ambling tourists up ahead tries to figure out which way is uptown or east or is just out for a liesurely stroll. I think a) construction should not ever be allowed to use one inch of sidewalk space, especially on busy streets like Fifth Avenue, and b) the sheds should be made so that they are spacious and free standing without any internal columns. I’m thinking that this could be accomplished by installing connection points on the buildings and in the curbs so that the building holds up one side of the shed and exterior columns hold up the other side, while the roof would have enough structure to withstand heavy center loads so those center posts wouldn’t be needed. I also think having the shed higher (say clearing the second story) would benefit the walking experience. Finally sheds shouldn’t be allowed to get scuzzy.

And I would agree, we should all petition the Times to do an investigative study on a) whose making all the money on this stuff and b) is it abusive.

The Bloomberg administration has sold our eyeballs to advertisers on bus shelters, subway entrances, turned buses and ferries into mobile billboards, and even erected its own billboards in apparent violation of the city’s ban on them near parks and arterials — so why not just sell the space on the roof sheds and be done with it?

As a worker in the construction trade, I never cease to be amazed at how far behind the times NYC is in so many things, not just “sidewalk sheds”. Even the name “sidewalk sheds” shows you how behind the curve NYC is when compared to other cities. City officials of many progressive cities like Austin, San Antonio, Phoenix, St. Louis, and even Wash DC have already determined minimum specifications for “temporary pedestrian walkways”. They have even managed to specify safe temporary traffic control solutions in the streets that are safe for vehicles, workers, AND pedestrians. Based on the track record of the NYC officials, I do not expect them to make any significant changes.

Sidewalk Sheds save lives protecting pedetrians for decades they do however need to be updated for law should be past the shed owners keep all of the the colors the shed is painted in uniform with each other component
it is not allowed in pipe scaffol why should it not be the case for the sheds I have been installing Shed in NYC for the past 22 years an I have always thought that a little pride in the job apperance would do well for the visual pollution at the moment

There was NO mention of consideration in the new design for plans that would accomodate wheelchair/scooter users.
I had a very bad experience of exiting a bus on my scooter at one of the stands which was enclosed on both sides and not being able to get out of the shed.
PLEASE FACTOR THIS INTO THE DESIGN.
It also forced me to be in the rain while waiting for the bus.

The fellow that has penned the comments to this article under the name “AH2″ made reference to a sidewalk shed at 25 Broadway. He or she further remarks that “most building owners don’t care how their exteriors look” and chose to reference 25 Broadway as an example.

I’m quite intimately familiar with this property. AH2 fails to understand that the bridge at 25 Broadway is in place because the owner of that property, correctly described as Zev Wolfson, has voluntarily undertaken the costly effort to undergo a facade restoration. This includes a solvent cleaning of the buliding’s delicate limestone façade material that is very time-intensive. It should be no mystery that this sort of work is done because it makes a building look better, and therefore elevates the perception of the building’s quality. I suggest that AH2 spend less time proclaiming who is right and wrong the article comments, and focus on getting her or her own facts straight.

As for the the bigger picture, sidewalk bridges (a) serve a real functional purpose, and (b) cost money to keep in place, the latter of which motivates any owner to want them removed as quickly as possible. It is true that some property owners treat sidewalk bridges as a veritable “billboard” (whether this choice is lawful ab initio in the eyes of the city is a different topic). But, this is about the only situation where a property owner has an economic motivation to let a sidewalk shed remain. For those owners who don’t go down this path — it’s easy to tell who’s who in this regard — there’s no logical reason for a bridge to remain longer than truly necessary. Where on earth does the opportunity for “tax breaks, bribes, and payola,” as described by Nelson Alexander’s commentary, come into play??

As a further correction, AH2 cites that the sidewalk bridge surrounds “all” of 25 Broadway. In actuality, the shed runs along less than half of the building’s frontage (more than half of Morris Street, and all of Greenwich Street are completely unaffected).

And, look at the bright side…while they’re in place, they provide welcome respite on rainy days!

I would like to see a Pipe Scaffolding on top of that glass like structure
Mr. O Farrell knows none of these components are compatible with the current ones in use today.

NYC did not reach out far enough to the Engineering community for better ideas this is not going to work with out further consideration
I was at the first few meetings 90% of the People did not know what a sidewalk shed was It was just a party for architects and Designers.

Does anybody here understand the fact that it’s the law, yes LAW to have these sidewalk sheds in place. All you crybabies complaining about how its impedes your walking ability or how there are far too many, or how disgusting they look or how they should be removed sooner need to realize 1 thing and 1 thing only. Sidewalk shed are put in place to protect people. Maybe you would rather have a falling object hit you in the head in which case you would be running off to court in a lawsuit against the building owner for not having his sidewalk protected with sidewalk shed. So people please………. move on to something more important.

What's Next

Looking for New York Today?

New York Today is still going strong! Though no longer on City Room, New York Today continues to appear every weekday morning, offering a roundup of news and events for the city. You can find the latest New York Today at nytoday.com or in the morning, on The New York Times homepage or its New York section. You can also receive it via email.

Lookin for Metropolitan Diary?

Metropolitan Diary continues to publish! Since 1976, Metropolitan Diary has been a place for New Yorkers, past and present, to share odd fleeting moments in the city. We will continue to publish one item each weekday morning and a round-up in Monday's print edition. You can find the latest entries at nytimes.com/diary and on our New York section online.

About

City Room®, a news blog of live reporting, features and reader conversations about New York City, has been archived. Send questions or suggestions by e-mail.